exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Recent correspondence in the Financial Times about UK nuclear generation capacity has led me to question the argument that nuclear is needed for something called "base load generation". There seems to be an idea that because renewables are variable in what they can supply, you also need something that is constant. But surely, if you have variable renewables, what you need is something else that you can vary, as needed, to take up the slack?
I've never heard it argued that nuclear generation is well suited to being ramped up and down to fit the gaps left by renewable generation. I should have thought things like hydro or gas turbines would be what one would use for that (to the extent that batteries can't fill the gap, of course).
So what is the role for nuclear, really? Is it just to get a more diverse non-fossil fuel generation portfolio? Or is there some logic behind this "base load" idea that I have missed?
I've never heard it argued that nuclear generation is well suited to being ramped up and down to fit the gaps left by renewable generation. I should have thought things like hydro or gas turbines would be what one would use for that (to the extent that batteries can't fill the gap, of course).
So what is the role for nuclear, really? Is it just to get a more diverse non-fossil fuel generation portfolio? Or is there some logic behind this "base load" idea that I have missed?